Saturday, January 27, 2007

Citizens' Committee Co-Chair to Nifong: Apologize

The recent developments surrounding District Attorney Mike Nifong withholding DNA evidence," she wrote, "have him in hot water . . . why would a district attorney with nearly 30 years of experience withhold DNA evidence? Is it worth losing a job, reputation and diminishing the state's chances and the alleged victim's right to present her story?"

She continues, "Nifong owes the alleged victim, his supporters and all who voted for him a public apology for his missteps in this case. Chances are slim that will ever happen."

For the case itself, even Brummell concedes it's going nowhere: "How much can you really do," she asks, "with a case riddled with bullet holes? Usually it's dead."

117 comments:

If Mangum wants her day in court, Nifong is actually a huge part of her problem.

Had she been given a legit photo line-up, had she been interviewed immediately and questions thouroughly on her contradictions and so forth, who knows, maybe this case wouldn't be such a disaster for the accuser.

"The chance that the alleged victim in the lacrosse case will be able to exercise her freedom of speech and tell her version of events in a courtroom, is very doubtful. If the State Attorney General's Office dismisses the case, vindication won't be decided in a court of law like it should.

Nifong owes the alleged victim, his supporters and all who voted for him a public apology for his missteps in this case. Chances are slim that will ever happen."

I find the letter to be disengenuous and dishonest as it speaks nothing to the defendants who were wrongly accused and charged falsely. The alleged victim does deserve her day in court, but not to stand as witness against the defendants, rather to stand trial for her perjury and false accusations. As far as excercising her 1st Admendment right to free speech, CGM can do that right now without Nifong. My guess is that before this is all over, she will continue to choose not to excercise her right of free speech. BTW I enjoyed reading the other letter to the editor - in which the Durham resident laments the fact that he as a taxpayer will have to bear the burden of the civil lawsuits that will follow and begs for the defendants to forget the whole thing and move on. LOL - the whole lead contaminated city of Durham will have to float municipal bonds to pay for their legal liability in this case. Me thinks property taxes will rise next year.

Interesting that her letter follows 1. the decision to let Seligmann and Finnerty back into school; and 2. revisionist history on the part of the university and the group of 88, namely that they had always believed in the presumption of innocence.

Is it possible that she's trying to cover her own ass against possible future litigation?

EmmyYou are so right with your comment!Kim Brummell doesn't sound any wiser than Nifong. Where is her outrage about those wrongly accused BECAUSE of Nifong's "missteps"? What does she believe those "missteps" were? If witholding DNA evidence is one of them, is she not smart enough to realize that this has hurt the innocent lax players more than the FA?

5:35 PM continued-From now on, expect to see the ranks of Nifong Victims swell. "We did nothing wrong, we were the vicitms!"

We've already seen that in the latest musings from the Holloway crowd. Weren't they misunderstood? In other words, we are all too stupid to understand their brilliance, and it led to some of them getting nasty, hateful emails.

Wonder how the nasty emails stack up against having your face and the faces of 45 of your closest friends plastered across the campus of the university you attend and being labeled criminals.

The letter was the first in the flood of victims that will emerge from this case, watch, I bet even that loon Peterson will be next to claim to be a victim of Nifong.

My guess is that Nifong is following his attorney's advice and keeping his mealy mouth shut. Kim is having withdrawal symptoms now that her head has been removed from Mike's azz. She's really pizzed because she's no longer an insider.

I hope that the Duke lacrosse families do not agree with the opinion of letter writer Kelly Bowling and sue the City of Durham. Bowling and the Duke families need to realize that it's the taxpayers of Durham who will foot the bill of any civil award, who are already among the most taxed citizens in the state, and most of whom had no say in this prosecution.

A lot of us didn't vote for Mike Nifong, nor support his handling of the case once the facts began to emerge. And most, if not all of us, are ready for this fiasco to be over.

I find it difficult to believe that these three young men with college educations from one of the finest institutions in the country and the support of successful families cannot overcome this incident and go on to lead full and productive lives.

Will anyone outside of Durham even remember their names a year or two from now? Egregious mistakes were made by the DA's office, but the hard-working citizens of Durham should not have to pay for them. Once the remaining charges are dropped, the best thing for everyone is to just move on.

You cannot place the accuser on the stand given her numerous stories. With the nation watching, subornation would be easily spotted, and your law license would grow wings and fly away from the backlash.

Well, maybe Precious can sue Nifong for screwing up her false case. But Precious didn't help her phony cause by telling so many convoluted, contradictory stories. I think she has to take some of the responsibility for the failure of this frame-up.

I think Nifong did the best he could for Precious considering that she was lying her a** off. It's tough to find evidence of a crime when no crime occurred. He rigged a line-up and let her pick the lacrosse players of her choice as her attackers. And he tried to hide the DNA evidence that showed she was essentially a sperm depository. Of non-lacrosse player sperm, anyway.

I find this rage rather amusing. Nifong was not hiding just any evidence, but EXCULPATORY evidence. In other words, he was trying to frame these young men.

Is Ms. Brummell upset because Mikey hid exculpatory evidence, or that he simply was caught. After all, from her past comments, Brummell clearly was not interested in there being anything that would point to innocence.

It seems to me that she is enraged because it is very unlikely she is going to have her cherished false conviction. To watch so many people in Durham and North Carolina throwing fits because they cannot have their wrongful conviction simply is sickening.

From the above link:"Brummell, for her part, has made no attempt to conceal the reason she’s backing Nifong. “If Mike Nifong was to lose the election,” she recently wrote, “there would be a slimmer chance of this [lacrosse] case going to trial.” Brummell hailed the district attorney as a “defiant prosecutor” who is focused on “bringing shame and humiliation to the privileged, while opening the public’s eyes to the underprivileged in what might stand as truth once he presents his case.”"

"You cannot place the accuser on the stand given her numerous stories. With the nation watching, subornation would be easily spotted"

How so?

If she's on the stand, he would simply ask her what happened first, what happened second, etc.

I'm sure they would plan for the inconsistencies and say something like, "Originally, you said it was 5 men and a different time, correct?" and should would respond with her rehersed answer, "Yes, but that was because I was so traumatized, I couldn't think clearly", etc.

6:38 - And then, as he had knowledge of the previous stories, and knowledge that the testimony was false, Bar Counsel files another Complaint, this time against Coman.

See NC Rules of Prof. Cond. 3.3(a)(4).

What you just stated is a bang-up way to get disbarred. A lawyer cannot ask this woman questions on the stand because it violates the Rules of Prof. Conduct. I would also suggest you read the Amended Complaint against Nifong VERY carefully. There is a message being imparted to Coman as to what the Bar thinks, and don't think he failed to see it.

[I'm sure they would plan for the inconsistencies and say something like, "Originally, you said it was 5 men and a different time, correct?" and should would respond with her rehersed answer, "Yes, but that was because I was so traumatized, I couldn't think clearly", etc.]

You said that there were 30 and then 5 and then 12 and then 18 and then 26 and then 2 and then 3 and then the 5 that were really 2 that had the same name because you were really traumatized, right? Now, when was it when you were able to think clearly?

At this point, the judge and the rest of the courtroom can't help but laughing out loud.

We're going to serve Accused White Russians. The crystal will have cracks in it, there'll be 5 names on every ID, everyone's free to have alleged sex and, unlike Vegas, everything that happens there will be reported to the media 20 different ways.

And why would a district attorney with nearly 30 years of experience withhold DNA evidence? Is it worth losing a job, reputation and diminishing the state's chances and the alleged victim's right to present her story?

She is clueless. Meritless cases must be dismissed. Nifong should apologize at his plea/sentencing for Obstruction of Justice.

"The chance that the alleged victim in the lacrosse case will be able to exercise her freedom of speech and tell her version of events in a courtroom, is very doubtful."

Kim Brummell will be relieved to know that the accuser's free speech rights are intact. All she needs to do to exercise them is to schedule an interview with the Press. I'm certain that John Stevenson, Wendy Murphy, or Duff Wilson will respond faithfully, pen in hand.

Of course, the accuser's lawyer--the one she hired--might advise against this course. But, Ms. Brummell, is that a free speech issue?

Brummell's sadness appears to result from reflecting on the insights of Group of 88 leader Karla Holloway, who memorably wrote:

You are quite right that it's not fair for the many who did not vote for Nifong to be penalized. I feel the same way when I have to pay taxes for a screw-up in my own locality.

However, Mr. Nifong, like most district attorneys,has probably railroaded many innocent people into prison in the course of his career. State and Federal administrators simply don't care about such things, and the only thing that is going to go some small distance toward preventing them in the future is for at least a few municipalities to be bankrupted paying for their employees' incompetence.

I know it's off subject, but does anyone know what the FA claims she did from the time she left the party at 12:30am till the security guard called from Kroger's at 1:22am? (That Kroger's is only 5min from the Lacrosse house)

Could Kim and friends really have been that dunb? I think they wanted their conviction, no matter what the evidence. What a mess - Because of his inflamatory remarks, Nifong has harmed race relations terribly. Or maybe bringing this hate to the surface is good. I never realized the black folk hated us so much. Hope there is a way to improve our feeling about each other,

I find it hard to buy your breach-of-ethics argument. If Coman puts CGM on the stand and lets her tell her latest story (or even a new story), how can anyone prove that he knows she is lying? He may "know" in his heart of hearts that she is lying and therefore be acting unethically, but I suspect he can do it without any fear that anyone could ever prove a case against him.

It happens all the time in both civil and criminal cases. The lawyer knows to a reasonable certainty that his client (or other witness) is lying, but he also knows that no one (except maybe his client) will be able to offer any evidence that he knew the client was lying. Therefore, he lets his client lie (or more likely, encourages his client to lie). It's the old story of the client telling the lawyer the truth, and the lawyer responding, "well, that may be what happened, but if it is, you are going to jail. Would you like a few moments to think about it and maybe decide you were wrong about a few particulars?"

I hope you are right, but I think the lacrosse players are going to trial unless the judge stops this fiasco, as he should.

[I find it hard to buy your breach-of-ethics argument. If Coman puts CGM on the stand and lets her tell her latest story (or even a new story), how can anyone prove that he knows she is lying? He may "know" in his heart of hearts that she is lying and therefore be acting unethically, but I suspect he can do it without any fear that anyone could ever prove a case against him.]

From the ammended complaint against Nifong, it appears that proving a case in front of the Bar is quite different from doing it in a courtroom. And the Bar appears to be in no mood to be considered fools.

T. ABASHIAN may not have as bad a problem as he thinks. At another website, a poster who identified himself as "Durham Lawyer" said that NC District Attorneys are employees of the State, not the Counties or Cities. For that reason, he also said he thought the State, not the City of Durham or Durham County, would be liable for Nifong's malfesance. Of course, the malfesance of the Durham police may well create liability for the local political subdivisions.

T. ABASHIAN may not have as bad a problem as he thinks. At another website, a poster who identified himself as "Durham Lawyer" said that NC District Attorneys are employees of the State, not the Counties or Cities. For that reason, he also said he thought the State, not the City of Durham or Durham County, would be liable for Nifong's malfesance.

Of course, the malfesance of the Durham police may well create liability for the local political subdivisions.

I believe the 'defendents' in the case need an apology from the likes of Kim Brummell. She seems upset that the alleged victim won't get her chance to speak in court. This alleged 'victim' has been doing plenty of speaking and frankly she does need a chance to speak in trial, the trial of her for filing a false rape charge.

They won't go to trial. The current prosecution is just waiting for Feb 5 hearing so they can put all the blame on Nifong going against procedure. They'll just lie down during the hearing, the photo line up will be declared inadmissable. *Then* they'll dismiss all the charges on lack of evidence. They'll say Nifong bungled procedure as if, had there been a fair line up procedure, they would have had a case. They'll never admit there never was a real case to begin with.Kim Brummel acts all outraged that there was *no reason* for Nifong to withhold evidence because if she admits there was a reason (that the only concrete evidence supported innocence rather than guilt) he covered up evidence, she's probably culpable too.Really weird though how she has interpreted "freedom of speech" to mean "right to have anyone you have a gripe with tried for a felony without having a shred of evidence."

"I find it hard to buy your breach-of-ethics argument. If Coman puts CGM on the stand and lets her tell her latest story (or even a new story), how can anyone prove that he knows she is lying? He may "know" in his heart of hearts that she is lying and therefore be acting unethically, but I suspect he can do it without any fear that anyone could ever prove a case against him."

I disagree. The standard is whether he "should have known" on the basis of a reasonably competent lawyer. Thus, when a "reasonably competent litigator" is presented with numerous different stories, he can not pick one of those stories and say that based on his "heart of hearts," story number 87 is less of a lie than story number 32.

"It happens all the time in both civil and criminal cases. The lawyer knows to a reasonable certainty that his client (or other witness) is lying, but he also knows that no one (except maybe his client) will be able to offer any evidence that he knew the client was lying."

Except that this is not what is happening here. In this case, the numerous stories are part of the record. In terms of what happens in the "real world," a person tells his counsel what he says happens, and the attorney puts that into evidence. Note the difference. If the attorney is presented with a story that is so outlandish that it is perjurous, and counters numerous other stories, he is obligated not to suborn that perjury on the stand. Thus, a litigator will not place his crminal client on the stand not because he has the right not do so, but also because, and let's face it, real crooks lie. Not only does it present risk to the client, but to the attorney as well.

"I hope you are right, but I think the lacrosse players are going to trial unless the judge stops this fiasco, as he should."

This case is going nowhere for the reasons I have stated above. Nifong is an idiot, Coman is probably not. No way, no how would he place his career on the line for the sake of this accuser. He will dismiss if the Court is not kind enough to do so for him. This is an untriable case at this point. It is radioactive, a disbarment waiting to happen, with an active, not very happy Bar Counsel watching every move.

To Abashian Why should you want to deny the right of these three guys to have their story heard before a relevant court? To present to a jury evidence of the harm and expense caused them directly by the unlawful acts of your elected DA? Mike Nifong won two elections in Durham to be installed as DA. The second occurred well after it was blatantly obvious that the only thing supporting the proscecution was improper actions. If Durham wants to avoid being sued and to help everyone get past this trauma then make a settlement offer. Think first for a while what an innocent person has had taken from them when every Google search on them for the rest of their lives will turn up a million hits for "rape". Your city sponsored a serious attempt to steal the bulk of these innocent young mens lives by a deliberate and corrupt use of the criminal justice system. A civil trial is just about money - no one is dragged off to jail no matter what happens. In other words, you are getting off easy.

To Abashian Why should you want to deny the right of these three guys to have their story heard before a relevant court? To present to a jury evidence of the harm and expense caused them directly by the unlawful acts of your elected DA? Mike Nifong won two elections in Durham to be installed as DA. The second occurred well after it was blatantly obvious that the only thing supporting the proscecution was improper actions. If Durham wats to avoid being sued and to help everyone get past this trauma then make a settlement offer. Think first for a while what an innocent person has had taken from them when every Google search on them for the rest of their lives will turn up a million hits for "rape". Your city sponsored a serious attempt to steal the bulk of these innocent young mens lives in a corrupt use of the criminal justice system. A civil trial is just about money - no one is dragged off to jail no matter what happens. In other words, you are getting off easy.

Excuse me but why did Brummel even suggest the false accuser should receive an apology? For creating this hoax. She will have her day in court, but she will be the defendent. The evidence is overwhelming she lied. Brummel's comment in sickening that she doesn't even mention the 3 young men who are the true victims.

Which of the 20 different versions of story is Crystal allowed to present to the court? I think not. Brummel is just plain dumb, the voters who voted in a criminal are dumb and Nifong enablers are dumb and they will held accountable.

Esquire in MD - I have been averring exactly the same point for some time now. Coman cannot put Ms. Mangum on the stand because he runs a very significant risk of suborning perjury. And this is far from the typical situation where lawyers countenance witnesses telling some elliptical or twisted view of the truth. Not only has Ms. Mangum's story changed, her latest, no doubt the exquisite product of that bright bulb Linwood Wilson's witness tampering, literally relates facts in a way that make the occurrence of a crime physically impossible. There's no way that Coman will put her on the stand - the risk of suborning perjury and being perceived as furthering a witness tampering and frame scheme begun by the DPD and the Fong is just too great.

guaunyu - I think Brummell reflects having an exceedingly limited intellect, and doesn't appear to be able to grasp any concept beyond those of her immediate emotions. This doesn't excuse her failure to put Nifong's actions in the proper perspective but she at the same time appears to be someone who is incapable of understanding the totality of events beyond the fact, that of course, in supporting Nifong, is now in a position of extreme embarrassment. But it does reflect the dire situation to which Nifong finds himself - no doubt trouble is at a fever pitch when the dumb and loyal are turning on him.

To 7:49: There are several lose ends that have not been answered and those answers have come from Crystal or Kim. 1. They left the party at 12:30. Krogers is 5 minutes away from the house. The call to the police is at 1:22. What what going on during that time.

2. When Crystal left the party she was wearing that one piece flesh colored outfit (pictured wearing). Yet when she arrived at the hospital she was wearing a little red nighty. (The reason she was painting her nails red in the bathroom instead of being attacked). She had changed to get ready for her next gig. Her escort service may know who her next appointment was and when.

3. The call to police was at 1:22. The officer arrived shortly after and said he was taken her in. Yet she arrived at the center 1 hour later. What happened between that time. The center she was taken to was less that 10 minutes away. I bet that officers DNA is a match of the infamous five that were found on her.

Now a question for the DPD.

1. Who was the officer who sent the email from the players computer saying he was going to confess. That player was in class at the time. And it was common knowledge among the students that the police would wait outside the dorms for someone to use their key card and slip their foot in the door. They actually snuck in like that. I would like the DNA of the officers tested and taken off the young mans computer. Planting evidence is a crime. This was the time that Nifong was trying to use scare, bullying tactics with the team. Who sent that email from the DPD?

Kim Brummell asking her buddy Nifong to apologize is pretty funny I must admit. This woman is almost as dumb as Curtis Gatewood.Some of these attention seekers like her and Victoria Peterson will latch onto anything to keep an issue alive. After some of the most ignorant letters to the H-S that Brummell wrote all year long I'm surprised she isn't hiding under a rock.The worst one was when she tried to compare this case to that movie (A Time To Kill) which dealt with the Ku Klux Klan and a murder. What a leap! Brummell is a typical rabble rouser who lives for race issues. This has got to hurt. Yowsa!During that time, the writer Debrah Correll ripped Brummell to shreads about that comparison. It was priceless. I have to hand it to Debrah, she's got a tongue like a knife. And she looks pretty good too.Brummell is still a hatemonger who wanted the rape charges to be true. No points for hatemongers after the fact.

9:39pmI'm surprised that KC is showcasing this b***h. It's like giving Maxine Waters an award for not making a fool of herself. Just a matter of time before the next bs AA issue to be exploited.Someone said on another website that Brummell is a security guard. Wonder if that is true. Maybe cousin Jackee/Jack can hire her. ;))

I saw that letter by Correll all over the websites. It's titled "It's All About Race". Made poor Ms. Brummell look like the stupid racemonger that she is. No question about it, she wanted the rape to be true. She's just angry that Mike Nifong was too dumb to pull off the frame of the innocent young men.

In our zeal to protect rape victims, are we still constrained by the assumption there's a victim here to protect?

We spend 90 percent of our time talking about an aberrant prosecutor, 88 insular professors, a legion of talking heads and reverse racists and virtually nothing about the source of the lava, save assumptions and insinuations.

Where is she, what is she doing, why is she still being perceived as a victim, if not in this case in life, and why is she being allowed to sit in the shadows?

How come there aren't cameras outside her door? Why didn't the late Ed Bradley knock?

Supporters describe her, not as a stripper or prevaricator, but as a "caring mother" "hard worker", "3.0 student in Police Psychology" and "sister survivor". That implies lucidity and responsibility. Why has no one sought her out?

We avoid character assassination, yet Ms. Mangum, as evidenced by her criminal past (yes, it's Wiki, but it's accurate), has long since turned the gun on herself and we, for the most part, turn our heads.

Are we waiting until the inevitable resolution gives us the moral authority to pursue her?

Might we better serve justice, race relations, victims' advocacy and society itself by seeing her and listening to her now? Or do we even care about that stuff?

It makes me puke that such a lowlife has caused such damage to productive people.What would a book from CGM be about? How to screw as many strangers as possible? How to pop out as many bast!rds as possible? How to let the taxpayers pay for it all as she continues to peddle her ugly sperm infested ass all over the streets?Is that a topic for the bookstores?How the ghetto trash find ways to trash the world and suffer no consequences?Puh-leeeeeze.

To 8:38pm--Excellent points. The lacrosse parents made some of the same comments on "60 Minutes".No one mentions the fact that because of the internet, these three guys will forever be googled up in association with "rape" when nothing of the sort took place.I must say that if this happened to me, I'd be looking to do more to the people responsible than just sue them.

'As objective evidence emerged, however, and as the evidence was analyzed and re-analyzed on the Internet and in the "blogosphere," something fairly rare occurred - many parts of the media began to re-examine their initial views on what happened.'

I know it is already obvious, but the role of the blogs in this case is absolutely remarkable. Cooney does not credit MSM with any analysis, but merely playing catch-up.

The press aren't camped at Crystal's door and there will be no book deal (perhaps a meta narrative) because a lying prostitute is not news. The sob sisters were just an added bonus, they asked to be slapped down and sent to their rooms.

There have been statements from parents who have decided to avoid Duke for their progeny until Duke's house is cleaned. Let me be the first to suggest a wonderful place. This university also came to mind during the 'girls gone wild' discussion the other night. When I was a coed the ratio of men to women was 10 to 1, the latest figures are 4 to 1. A beautiful place. Check it out, and don't forget to look at the web cams too. Michigan Technological University Majors

Jim: There are no legal implications, just political implications. The policy at issue is a good one for real victims. No woman who has been really raped should have a bunch of reporters in her front yard. But in Crystal's case, this does not apply. Notwithstanding, they are following their own policy in these cases, even though everyone knows she is being untruthful.

Personally, I would park a FOX News truck right out front of her house and start asking questions.

I know this is a delicate topic, but I have to ask.Is anal sex a frequent and everyday thing between lovers?I've never had the desire. Seems very painful and also a potentially nasty adventure.Some time ago I read a story about a longtime committed gay couple. They are now kinda old. Maybe in their 60's. All the heavyduty anal sex over the decades caused the one guy to have problems with his elimination process. In short, his sphincter muscle had become so loose from anal sex that he has to now wear a diaper. Ugh.Seems a heavy price to pay. Not to mention---GROSS!

From what I understand, anal sex has become commonplace among heterosexual couples.

My advice: don't knock it until you've tried it.

For the heterosexual female's POV on anal, suggest you read the ballerina Toni Bentley's book, "The Surrender." It's considered a masterpiece of erotica, and was well reviewed by the former editor of the NY Times Book Review (an Irishman--forgot his name)

re: 12:33Right now it's 17 degrees in Houghton. Winter days are clear and bright, snow sparkles brighter than diamonds and the forecast for the next few months is snow. 200" of dry and light as corn starch snow a year. MTU'76

To 2:31 Gross? yes, but I am not making this shit up. Every big city E.R. has a photo-collection of various amazing objects removed from the back-door regions of individuals seeking treatment for having lost them there. Perhaps I should go no further. Working in a trauma center will quickly make a person jaded beyond normal human limits and that should not become your problem.

hman--Then you are saying that RP is right.Anal sex is very prevalent among heteros as well.To each his own. I just can't get past the pain that is sure to be an element of such an adventure.Once or twice in a lifetime just as an experiment, maybe. As a daily way to have sex---GROSS!I'd probably not last very long working in an ER or trauma center. ;))

I wonder how unusual it is for the NAACP to support a white person like they are supporting Nifong.I also wonder how many of the Group of 88 or Gang of 87 actually have residences in Durham County.

I live in Durham County. I believe the Lacrosse players are innocent. I also do not believe their reputations are ruined. I do believe that lawsuits should be filed. The families have suffered so much, and they should not have to lose a penny over this fiasco. If my property taxes go up, so be it.

CGM does not want her day in court, and Nifong, for all his blunders, probably saved her becasue of them. She lied, and even if Nifong had not been so stupid, I can guarantee you, Joe Cheshire and Company would have exposed them, leaving her open to perjury...

"Coman cannot put Ms. Mangum on the stand because he runs a very significant risk of suborning perjury."

Unless he *wants* to drop the case?Ask her what happened, ask her to explain a previous statement, ask her to explain another previous statement .... "Your honor, it looks like our lead witness isn't reliable. I think we'd better drop it."

While this is dubious legal precedent on a good day, didn't the runaway bride have to pay a substantial fine to make up for the investigation expenses the county incurred in response to her false report?

Anyone think that the people of Durham will seek similar reimbursement from Precious? Me neither.

Blog Awards

About Me

I am from Higgins Beach, in Scarborough, Maine, six miles south of Portland. After spending five years as track announcer at Scarborough Downs, I left to study fulltime in graduate school, where my advisor was Akira Iriye. I have a B.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard, and an M.A. from the University of Chicago. At Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center, I teach classes in 20th century US political, constitutional, and diplomatic history; in 2007-8, I was Fulbright Distinguished Chair for the Humanities at Tel Aviv University.

Book

Comments Policy

(1) Comments are moderated, but with the lightest of touches, to exclude only off-topic comments or obviously racist or similar remarks.

(2) My clearing a comment implies neither that I agree nor that I disagree with the comment. My opinion is expressed in my words and my words only. Since this blog has more than 1500 posts, and since I at least occasionally comment myself, the blog provides more than enough material for readers to discern my opinions.

(3) If a reader finds an offensive comment, I urge the reader to e-mail me; if the comment is offensive, I will gladly delete it.

(4) Commenters who either misrepresent their identity or who engage in obvious troll behavior will not have their comments cleared. Troll-like behavior includes, but is not limited to: repeatedly linking to off-topic sites; repeatedly asking questions that already have been answered; offering unsubstantiated remarks whose sole purpose appears to be inflaming other commenters.

"From the Scottsboro Boys to Clarence Gideon, some of the most memorable legal narratives have been tales of the wrongly accused. Now “Until Proven Innocent,” a new book about the false allegations of rape against three Duke lacrosse players, can join these galvanizing cautionary tales . . , Taylor and Johnson have made a gripping contribution to the literature of the wrongly accused. They remind us of the importance of constitutional checks on prosecutorial abuse. And they emphasize the lesson that Duke callously advised its own students to ignore: if you’re unjustly suspected of any crime, immediately call the best lawyer you can afford."--Jeffrey Rosen, New York Times Book Review